Between Journalistic Sensation and Legal Accuracy 

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Sensational Headlines 

Most Journalists love to use sensational headlines to attract readers, and this is fine, particularly when the contents of the story are equally as stunning and accurate. Of course, if the contents turn out to be dull, beneath expectation or not exactly matching the ‘juicy’ headline, there’s  an anti-climax. 

Last week, I saw a headline that made the rounds on social media: “AGF to Court: Deregister ADC, Accord, and 3 Others Now”. A somewhat sensational headline, suggesting to readers that Nigeria’s present leadership/ruling party, APC, which is perceived to be constantly trying to muscle out ADC and any other opposition, has again made another attempt, this time by using the AGF to apply to the court to have opposition parties deregistered, thereby further riling Nigerians who are already uncomfortable with the thought of a one-party State. It is lawful for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister political parties that don’t meet the constitutional thresholds; they do nothing but clutter the ballot, and make the electoral process more expensive. Anyway, the headline certainly had the desired effect, as it made me curious enough to read the story. 

Summary of Section 225A of the Constitution 

Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) which was inserted via the 2017 Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, aims at removing non-viable political parties from the scene, in order to de-clutter the system. INEC can deregister a political party that either violates registration necessities, or fails to meet the specified electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the Constitution. These thresholds include winning at least 25% of votes in designated Presidential or Governorship elections, or securing at least one seat/ward at the National Assembly, State Assembly, Chairmanship, or Councillorship levels (see Section 225A(b) & (c) of the Constitution). See NUP v INEC (2021) LPELR-58407(SC) per Adamu Jauro, JSC on the interpretation of Section 225A of the Constitution. 

The Deregistration Case

Once I started reading, I saw that the AGF (Attorney-General of the Federation) couldn’t have been the one making the request in the news story’s headline from the onset, which was the impression the headline sought to portray, because the AGF is not a Plaintiff, but the 2nd Defendant in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators v INEC, AGF & Ors (Deregistration case), which is the subject-matter of the story. It is the Plaintiff that institutes actions to pray the court for specific orders, while normally, a Defendant responds to a Plaintiff’s claim, usually asking the court not to grant the Plaintiff’s prayers. In response, a Defendant denies or admits the Plaintiff’s claim, or says they don’t know. It is trite that every allegation of fact must be specifically denied, if not, it is taken as admitted. See Odiba & Anor v Muemue (1999) LPELR-2216(SC) per Emmanuel Obioma Ogwuegbu, JSC on the effect of allegations not specifically denied. 

The story went on to state that, the AGF aligned himself with the Plaintiff’s allegations. Then instead, maybe the headline should  have read something like“AGF Backs Plaintiff in Case to Deregister ADC,….”. When a Defendant admits to facts pleaded by a Plaintiff, the Plaintiff doesn’t have to prove those facts as they are no longer in issue between the parties. See Antonio Oil Co. Ltd v AMCON (2024) LPELR-62610(SC) per Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC.

In the news story, the Plaintiff in the Deregistration case, Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators (ITFL), are the ones praying the court for orders, including one to deregister certain political parties that they allege have failed to meet the conditions set out in Section 225A of the Constitution, which allow the parties to maintain their registration. 

Generally, in civil cases, there are several scenarios in which a Defendant may align with a Plaintiff’s claim – 1) where there’s a consent judgement – see CBN v Interstella Communications Ltd & Ors (2017) LPELR-43940(SC) per Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC where the Supreme Court defined consent judgement thus: “Where parties to a suit in Court have agreed with each other as to how to settle their dispute, they are to approach the Court to give judgement on the terms they have agreed upon. Such judgement when given is a consent judgment….”; 2) where the Defendant admits to part of the claim; and 3) where the Plaintiff and Defendant conspire, because they want a similar or the same outcome, but may be expedient for the Defendant not to be the party to institute the action. In some cases, the Defendant may even admit to all the Plaintiff’s allegations of fact, but, still argue that the Plaintiff isn’t entitled to judgement. See the case of Ojikutu v Ojikutu (1971) LPELR-2375 (SC) per George Baptist Ayodola Coker, JSC. 

It appears that the news headline may have been accusing the AGF of taking the third option, that is, colluding with ITFL to have the political parties deregistered. Is this accusation of collusion also enhanced by the fact that, when a Defendant admits to a Plaintiff’s allegations, evidence on the admitted fact becomes irrelevant or unnecessary? See Bunge & Anor v Governor Rivers State & Ors 2006 12 N.W.L.R, Part 995 Page 573 at 600. It is therefore, apposite that we interrogate two pertinent issues in this case – 1) whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to institute the action, thereby giving the court jurisdiction to entertain the matter; and 2) whether there is merit in ITFL’s claim, that is, whether some of the political parties may have actually failed to meet the constitutional thresholds set out in Section 225A of the Constitution, and therefore, be ripe for deregistration. 

Locus Standi of ITFL

In Barbus & Co (Nig) Ltd & Anor v Okafor-Udensi (2018) LPELR-44501(SC) per John Inyang Okoro, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “The expression “Locus standi”, denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law….A person has locus standi to sue in an action, if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court, that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There are two tests for determining if a person has locus standi. They are:- 1. The action must be justiciable. 2. There must be a dispute between the parties….”. In AGF v AG Abia & Ors (2024) LPELR-62576(SC) per Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC, the Supreme Court also held thus: “The hallowed principle of locus standi is predicated on the pedestal that, no Court is obligated to adjudicate a claim in which the Plaintiff has a remote, hypothetical or no sufficient interest at all”.

While the Deregistration case may be justiceable, it is unlikely that ITFL has sufficient interest in it, or its rights are directly affected, or have been infringed by the non-deregistration of any political party,  or that there’s any dispute between ITFL and the Defendants,  seeing as ITFL is nothing more than a non-governmental organisation interested in good governance. 

It is trite that it is the law that endows a party with locus standi, and that parties cannot by agreement, confer locus standi on themselves, as the AGF appears to have sought to do, by responding that ITFL has sufficient interest to question constitutional infractions in the electoral system. See Odey v APC & Ors (2023) LPELR-59695(CA) per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA on statute conferring locus standi. In Waziri v PDP & Anor (2022) LPELR-59174(SC) per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC (now CJN), the Supreme Court held that “Where a Plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute an action, the Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain it”. Additionally, in State v Vuyor (2025) LPELR-80234(SC) per Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, the Apex Court held that “The consequence of lack of jurisdiction on the part of a Court of law to adjudicate over a matter is so ominous and elementary, that all proceedings conducted otherwise by the Court are rendered an exercise in futility for being null, void and of no legal effect howsoever”. 

The sum total of these authorities is that, if the court finds that ITFL doesn’t possess the necessary locus standi to institute the action, the proceedings would be declared null and void and of no effect, and accordingly, struck out because of court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear a case that isn’t properly constituted. See Madukolu v Nkemdilim 1962 2 SCNLR 341.

Merits of the Deregistration Case

Even though in one instance the court may lack jurisdiction to entertain a matter, doesn’t mean that the grounds of a claim are not sustainable in law, or have no merit – they may be/have. So, if the action is instituted by the proper party so to do, at the proper venue, there could be a likelihood of success, if the case has merit.

However, since the case is before a court of law, it is for the court to determine whether the political parties sought to be deregistered meet the thresholds set in Section 225A of the Constitution. See NUP v INEC (2021) LPELR-58407 (Supra). But, how does Section 225A of the Constitution affect a situation where elective officers, subsequent upon winning elections on previous political party platforms, defect to other political parties that may have previously fallen within the realm of non-performance? For instance, Governors Demola Adeleke, Peter Mbah and Dauda Lawal who won their elections on the PDP platform, moved to Accord and APC, respectively. So, even if Accord didn’t have elective office holders to meet the Section 225A threshold previously, Accord Party now has a Governor, Would Accord still qualify to be deregistered? 

Senator Ireti Kingibe who won her seat on the Labour Party platform, is now a member of ADC. But, Hon. Abejide won his House of Representatives seat in the 2023 election under ADC. If the Section 225A threshold is interpreted based on the performance of the parties during the 2023 elections, meaning that the victories would be credited to their previous and not current parties, does this mean that ADC doesn’t qualify for deregistration? 

If there is any truth to any of the allegations levelled by ITFL in their claim, the Defendants would be constrained to admit those allegations where they are true, and obviously deny those that are false. So, if for example, ITFL rightly averred that Party X didn’t meet any of the thresholds whether Presidential or Local Government, any, and the averment is true, the Defendants cannot deny the allegation. allegation, though they can choose to respond that they don’t know!

Conclusion 

The above-mentioned Deregistration Case news story headline demonstrates the increasing propensity in Nigerian journalism, to prioritise sensation over accuracy. By portraying the AGF as the aggressor initiating the action in the Deregistration case, the headline unfairly fuels narratives of executive interference and an advancing, unwanted one-party State, when in reality the suit was instituted by ITFL, with the AGF merely aligning with/admitting to aspects of the claim as may be customary for a Defendant to do when necessary. As the Chief Law Officer of Nigeria, it behoves the AGF to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, without fear or favour. As long as this is done in the Deregistration or any other case the AGF is party to, then hopefully, sensational journalism orchestrated to erode public trust, will ultimately be ignored and not taken seriously. 

Beyond media responsibility, the Deregistration case raises fundamental constitutional questions, that require answers.